May 1999 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

OUTAGE: Pagenet up, OC-192 in Washington DC hit
by Sean Donelan 18 May '99

18 May '99

Pagenet seems to have restored some pager service because I awoke to the news of an OC-192 in Washington DC down due to unannounced "non-service affecting" maintenance by the carrier early this morning. To think I thought I could get an uninterrupted night's sleep because the pager wouldn't go off. Murphy's law applies even to to things that aren't supposed to be working :-) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Vadim Antonov 18 May '99

18 May '99

Actually, the cost of undersea capacity is smaller than the cost of land capacity. For all i know, prices are being kept artificially high by parties i don't want to name (they know). (Think cost of rights of way and that digging trenches is not that easy). --vadim Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)ibm.net.il> wrote: > You are merely showing your geocentricism by saying that bandwidth is > essentially free. That may be true in the USA but not in other countries > and especially not trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic.

2 1

OUTAGE: Pagenet down, ETR 24 hours
by Sean Donelan 18 May '99

18 May '99

Pagenet reports a problem with the Pagenet service in the Central, Southern and South East Division. There was a satellite uplink failure earlier this evening. Technicians are working on the problem with an ETR of 24 hours. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Pagenet anyone?
by Sean Donelan 18 May '99

18 May '99

I don't know if this is just a regional problem, but several of our network engineers have reported several 20-30 minutes periods of no-service on their PAGENET pagers this evening. We didn't receive notice from PAGENET they were conducting any scheduled maintenance this evening. If trying to reach people with PAGENET service, you may want to followup with alternate contact methods if they don't respond. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

RE: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Vadim Antonov 17 May '99

17 May '99

Steve Riley (MCS) <steriley(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >Nice to see that I'm not the only one believing in the foolishness of QoS >hype. Er... me, agreeing with someone from Microsoft? Yeech! (just kidding :) >Allow me to point you to an interesting paper called "Rise of the Stupid >Network." Unfortunately that paper oversimplifies the whole congestion control issue by completely ignoring the fact that data traffic has a heavy-tailed distribution. Which pretty much means that no matter how much capacity is there, as long as there's oversubscription there will be at least transient traffic jams. Which means that the issue of what to do with different types of traffic when there's a congestion cannot be just pooh-poohed. The big problem with G.711 and its progeny is the lack of effective cooperative congestion control which would guarantee network stability (like TCP does). Fortunately, the bulk of network traffic is "canned" content, which can (and should) be transmitted with TCP. --vadim

1 0

Re: whois changes
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 17 May '99

17 May '99

Absolutely, but I think this brings up a bigger issue... This is basically another attempt by NSI to claim they own the data contained in WHOIS. This concerns me much more than the arbitrary and cavalier way they make changes. Owen > You agree that you will not reproduce, sell, transfer, or > modify any of the data presented in response to your search request, or > use of any such data for commercial purpose, without the prior > express written permission of Network Solutions. > > > > The verbage change broke my script, only because of sloppy programming on my > part, but.... Since whois'es sometimes close before you get the entire > report, I needed a way to know I got the entire message. > > This effect anyone else? Anyone else in favor of a "HEADS-UP" from > networksolutions before these take place? :) > > > Kevin Day > DragonData > >

3 2

Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Vadim Antonov 17 May '99

17 May '99

Pete Kruckenberg <pete(a)kruckenberg.com> wrote: >The presentations I've seen about QoS implementations have >all seemed to contain major sections about how the networks >had to work around problems or scale back the implementation >because of resource limitations (CPU, memory, etc). Haven't >seen anyone implement RSVP on a wide scale, due to similar >types of problems. It is painfully obvious that RSVP cannot be implemented on a large scale for years now for reasons having to do more with fundamental properties of algorithms (i.e. complexity) than with particulars of protocols or implementations. RSVP - perpetuum mobile of 90s? :) >Sounds like QoS is marketing material, >not the stuff networks are built on. Is that still the case? Yep. Altough not _all_ QoS schemes are broken-as-designed. The most trivial per-packet priority combined with ingress priority mix shaping works. Ths idea of end-to-end whatever reservations or guarantees is usually propounded by people who either neglected their CS courses or those who are trying to sell it. >How the heck are people able to deploy native-IP networks >with these kinds of limitations/problems with QoS? Or did I >miss something about QoS recently? Yep. The biggest QoS secret is that nobody actually needs it. Bandwidth is cheap and is growing cheaper. The manpower needed to deploy and maintain QoS is getting more and more expensive. --vadim

1 0

NANOG - Question format suggestion
by Rodney Joffe 17 May '99

17 May '99

At previous NANOGs, people who have been watching via mbone and whatever other flavors of broadcast were working have had to make comments/ask questions via the NANOG list, or by emailing a friend with connectivity in the meeting. This also holds true for the ietf stuff as far as I remember. As we know, the NANOG list takes a looooong time to distribute, by which time the subject matter the question relates to, and/or the session is long since forgotten. I'd like to suggest that at each session the NANOG organizers identify an email address or irc channel of some kind that is monitored by the moderator for remote questions... /rlj CenterGate Research Group http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even *we* don't understand it"

4 3

Smurf attack from AS1717
by Henry R. Linneweh 17 May '99

17 May '99

the attack was without warrant. and started: 11:42:53 AM: Dial-Up Adapter [0000][Ref# 2] Blocking incoming ICMP: src=193.51.125.253, dst=206.173.231.208, type 0. and ended at: 11:43:10 AM: Dial-Up Adapter [0000][Ref# 2] Blocking incoming ICMP: src=193.49.21.7, dst=206.173.231.208, type 0. generating 9486 lines from AS1717 inetnum: 193.51.125.0 netname: FR-SHSNET6 descr: LISH - CNRS descr: Laboratoire d'Informatique pour les Sciences de l'Homme descr: 54 Boulevard Raspail, F-75006 PARIS, France country: FR admin-c: Jean-Louis Leonhardt tech-c: Philippe Leca remarks: RERIF changed: rensvp(a)urec.fr 940928 source: RIPE Your probe of 193.49.21.7/24 yielded the following results: Network: 193.49.21.0, Netmask: 255.255.255.0, Broadcast: 193.49.21.255, Responded: Yes (broadcast=4, network=0), Duplicates: 3 CONCLUSION: This network is a potential smurf amplifier. id: 1025582 created: 1998-10-23 17:13:24 CET updated: 1999-05-16 21:01:34 CET network: 193.49.21.0/24 net-descr: not-analyzed last-probed: 1999-05-16 21:17:04 CET responding: Yes duplicates: 3 (highest seen, resets to 0 when 0 seen) fixed: never home-as: 1717 as-descr: not-analyzed ====================================== Your probe of 193.51.125.253/24 yielded the following results: Network: 193.51.125.0, Netmask: 255.255.255.0, Broadcast: 193.51.125.255, Responded: Yes (broadcast=44, network=0), Duplicates: 43 CONCLUSION: This network is a potential SEVERE smurf amplifier. id: 1025926 created: 1998-10-23 19:55:46 CET updated: 1999-03-19 13:06:37 CET network: 193.51.125.0/24 net-descr: not-analyzed last-probed: 1999-05-16 21:18:19 CET responding: Yes duplicates: 45 (highest seen, resets to 0 when 0 seen) fixed: never home-as: 1717 as-descr: not-analyzed

2 1

Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Pete Kruckenberg 17 May '99

17 May '99

There is so much hype and marketing going on about IP QoS these days, it's hard to tell what's /just/ hype and marketing and what's actually in production. I'm wondering if anyone is actually using any of the IP QoS features offered by various vendors in a production environment. I'm particularly interested to know if the famed replacement of ATM QoS features (basic stuff, like prioritization, traffic policing and traffic shaping, sustained and peak rates) has happened in a native IP network (ie POS or IP over PtP circuits), particularly one that runs multiple services (like some real-time stuff like voice, video, streaming, and some non-real-time stuff). There have been a lot of announcements and rumors about this kind of stuff (like Enron Communications PureIP network, Convergent's fully-Cisco [possibly L3] network, Level3's IP-only network, etc), but so far it seems like the only people running native IP on their network don't need QoS at the level that ATM provides, or aren't running any QoS. And it seems like anyone who has built/is building a multi-service network is using ATM because of the QoS issues, amongst other things. The presentations I've seen about QoS implementations have all seemed to contain major sections about how the networks had to work around problems or scale back the implementation because of resource limitations (CPU, memory, etc). Haven't seen anyone implement RSVP on a wide scale, due to similar types of problems. Sounds like QoS is marketing material, not the stuff networks are built on. Is that still the case? How the heck are people able to deploy native-IP networks with these kinds of limitations/problems with QoS? Or did I miss something about QoS recently? Pete.

2 1